<trackbot> Date: 05 May 2009

<scribe> Scribe: mphillip

<scribe> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2009May/0003.html

Actions

<Roland> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/actions/open

Derek: No progress on action 68

Roland: Eric has chased up action 73 by email. He received a response from Mark Baker, but nothing yet from Harald

close action-73

<trackbot> ACTION-73 Follow up IRI jndi issue after next week with Harald closed

Roland: We agreed last week that we would not update the prefix unless necessary
... Therefore we can close action 81

close action-81

<trackbot> ACTION-81 update the spec. with "jndi-" prefix changes (when we get confirmation from Harald) closed

Roland: So the next step is to get to candidate recommendation
... Will kick off the process with Yves

Testing

Roland: Phil has made some updates to document test coverage
... Eric has an action to look at WSDL coverage

Phil: Not sure if we necessarily need to associate a test case with every assertion

Roland: We should document that in the assertions or create a test case which is a 'null' test case
... Are there any that need to change before we go to CR?

<Roland> http://dev.w3.org/2008/ws/soapjms/testcases/assertions/assertions.html

Phil: For example Protocol-2041

http://www.w3.org/TR/soapjms/#Protocol-2041-summary

Phil: is not really an assertion

<Roland> http://www.w3.org/TR/soapjms/#Protocol-2041

Roland: The table following the assertion lists the values set by a conforming client.

<Roland> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2008/ws/soapjms/soapjms.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#Protocol-2041

Mark: Perhaps the assertion text should say something like "A conforming sending node MUST set message values according to the table in 2.7.1"

Roland: Or the whole table should be in the assertion

Phil: We probably have this covered by other assertions

Roland: The definition of the properties does make assertions - for example the deliveryMode property is covered in Protocol-2005
... The table has the benefit of grouping everything together under the role of the Sending SOAP node

Phil: This is the one-way pattern right?

Roland: Correct, there is the equivalent table for request-response in 2.6.1

Phil: May be worth putting additional text in the assertion to clarify

Roland: e.g. for 2035 "Requesting-Response MEP -requesting SOAP node"

Phil: Or just turn it into a sentence

Roland: Will have a go at improving the wording for 2035, 2039, and 2041

Phil: 2042 needs some rewording too

Roland: Yes, all the faults should already be covered by assertions

Action Roland to Reword the assertions 2035, 2039, and 2041 so that they make more sense

<trackbot> Created ACTION-84 - Reword the assertions 2035, 2039, and 2041 so that they make more sense [on Roland Merrick - due 2009-05-12].

action Roland to see whether assertion 2042 can be removed bacause all faults are covered by their own assertion

<trackbot> Created ACTION-85 - See whether assertion 2042 can be removed bacause all faults are covered by their own assertion [on Roland Merrick - due 2009-05-12].

Phil: Also look at 2024

Roland: That would cover most of the assertions without test cases

<scribe> chair: Roland

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.135  of Date: 2009/03/02 03:52:20  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Found Scribe: mphillip
Inferring ScribeNick: mphillip
Default Present: Roland, +1.708.246.aaaa, Derek, +1.919.663.aabb, +0196270aacc, mphillip, +1.512.286.aadd, Phil
Present: Roland +1.708.246.aaaa Derek +1.919.663.aabb +0196270aacc mphillip +1.512.286.aadd Phil
Regrets: Eric Yves
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2009May/0003.html
Found Date: 05 May 2009
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2009/05/05-soap-jms-minutes.html
People with action items: